Jump to content

Any desire for a macro lens for the SL?


Linford
 Share

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been making do with the 2.8/60mm Macro R-Series by stacking converters onto my SL. I researched and understand that the 2.5/120mm Macro-Summarit-S is an outstanding lens. However, another pricey converter and the cost of the lens itself makes this solution a bit of a reach. Are there any plans for a macro lens specific to the SL? Is there a demand for one? Cheers--lt

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one wish there were one.

I also wish there were focus bracketing when there is one because I can’t slew through the focal range as fast or accurately as the camera can.

 

In the meanwhile there is the TL 60mm which may actually be advantageous due to the slightly larger DOF. The obvious cost is resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the (fantastic) Summicron-SL 90mm with a Marumi DHG Achromat (3 dpt) - still waiting for a SL macro lens...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for an SL Macro lens in the 90-100mm range. Had hoped that at the recent opening event in Wetzlar the new lens roadmap would be announced including a macro option. 

 

Reading a lot of great things about the APO-macro-elmarit-R 100mm. Also toying with the idea of the Canon TS-E 90mm F2.8L Macro, which would add perspective control for product photography. I have the Canon 180mm macro + novoflex adapter, but do like the Leica colors better. I've tried the TL-60mm and it is a lovely lens. In normal use the reduction in resolution may not even be such an issue, perhaps it's more a mental block to use €8000 worth of gear to shoot macro at 10megapixel.

 

So for now, I use some lower-cost alternatives, either the M-macro adapter with Summicron-M, or the Marumi with the SL 24-90.

 

@Mediafotografie: Beautiful pictures! Thanks for posting. Have you tried the Marumi also on the 24-90? And if so, how does the Summicron-SL 90mm stack up against it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Macro is supposed to be done with manual focus lenses there is good choice of legacy and current lenses for SLR systems, plus adaptors are not all that expensive compared to S adaptor for instance. 

 

For one Leica R APO Macro Elmarit 100mm is classic reference lens, much cheaper than any new similar FL Leica lens would be.  It produces close ups with 1:2 magnification and also 1:1 with dedicated ELPRO 1:2-1:1 attachment. 

 

More difficult to find is now discontinued but apparently peerless (never used it myself) Voightlander/Cosina APO Macro 125mm f2.5 for Nikon F, and presumably other SLR mounts.

 

Zeiss produces excellent Makro Planar 2/100mm, current range is called Milvus, produced in either Nikon F or Canon EOS mount, stopped down to f2.8 when chromatic aberrations stop (old ZF version) is as good as Macro Elmarit 100mm , maximum enlargement is 1:2 but it can take SLR extension tubes for further magnification.

 

There are of course other macro lenses in 90-105mm range from Tamron, Nikon, etc, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although there are plenty of macro lens options available for the SL through adaptation, a native set of SL macro lenses ... around 50, 100, 180 mm focal lengths ... would be the first prime lenses I purchased for the SL if they were available. 

 

While I don't photograph bugs all that much, I do use my cameras to photograph flat pieces and small models quite a lot ... 

 

 

I've found that the Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 and Macro-Elmar-R 100mm f/4 (in bellows mount on the Focusing Bellows-R) were two of my most used lenses on the SL, particularly the 60mm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A native Macro lens would be brilliant. Ideally at least 150mm, or better yet 200mm.

 

The S 125 is great but ponderously slow. The CL and 60 Macro are my current choice. But I’d love a native Macro with a focal length better suited to chasing bugs.

 

At the same time, a 1.4 or 1.7 teleconverter please!

Edited by Alistairm
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although there are plenty of macro lens options available for the SL through adaptation, a native set of SL macro lenses ... around 50, 100, 180 mm focal lengths ... would be the first prime lenses I purchased for the SL if they were available. 

 

While I don't photograph bugs all that much, I do use my cameras to photograph flat pieces and small models quite a lot ... 

 

 

I've found that the Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm f/2.8 and Macro-Elmar-R 100mm f/4 (in bellows mount on the Focusing Bellows-R) were two of my most used lenses on the SL, particularly the 60mm. 

 

 

 

I cannot see the point of buying a dedicated SL AF macro lens (likely cost c. $4000+? when eventually available)  for this type of 'studio / mini-studio close up photography' when with a classic Leitz 100mm Macro Elmar R ( $300 or less s/h) … or a Leitz 60mm Macro Elmarit R (s/h $400 to $500 or less), more then adequate results such as this are so easily achievable at considerably less cost. 

 

And who could tell the difference? 

 

'In the field' when AF is required its a different ball game … but even outside in the garden taking flower photos, then 'R' lens options are more cost effective. And many of the forum close up images posted are actually flowers.  

 

I'd prefer to buy an SL 16-35mm rather than a dedicated SL macro lens. And there are also supplementary third party achromats available which would easily adapt to the SL 90mm and SL 75mm lenses and provide perfectly acceptable AF close-up images.

 

dunk 

Edited by dkCambridgeshire
Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see the point of buying a dedicated SL AF macro lens (likely cost c. $4000+? when eventually available)  for this type of 'studio / mini-studio close up photography' when with a classic Leitz 100mm Macro Elmar R ( $300 or less s/h) … or a Leitz 60mm Macro Elmarit R (s/h $400 to $500 or less), more then adequate results such as this are so easily achievable at considerably less cost. 

 

And who could tell the difference? 

 

'In the field' when AF is required its a different ball game … but even outside in the garden taking flower photos, then 'R' lens options are more cost effective. And many of the forum close up images posted are actually flowers.  

 

I'd prefer to buy an SL 16-35mm rather than a dedicated SL macro lens. And there are also supplementary third party achromats available which would easily adapt to the SL 90mm and SL 75mm lenses and provide perfectly acceptable AF close-up images.

 

dunk 

 

 

For my specific macro focusing needs, I agree there is little point. I don't use AF either when doing macro work 'in the field'... I use camera stands or tripods of various types to get the quality I want. I also mostly used aperture priority exposure automation or manual settings ... 

 

However, I find that I often use a macro lens for more general purpose uses as well. That's when the option of AF and all the other automation conveniences and metering modes are most useful. The SL24-90 and SL90-280 lenses are fine for most of this, but a 50-60 mm, a 90-100mm, and a 150-200mm macro lens kit tends—one at a time—to be much lighter, smaller, and would work better for me a good bit of the time, if they were available. 

 

Of course, this is all becoming somewhat academic for me now since I've decided that the limited use I have put the SL body and its lenses to does not warrant their cost sitting on a shelf unused. My SL system is up for sale on consignment, as a result, and I'll acquire a CL body once they're sold to use with my existing mount adapters, M-mount and R-mount lenses and accessories. That will fill the bill for my needs very nicely. I'll most likely buy the native 60mm macro for the CL as my only native lens, eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

I'm curious about the Sigma 'Art Lens' 70mm macro, which is (by Leica standards) remarkably affordable at about $575. It's autofocus, but that's irrelevant to me; and it's shorter than the Canon 100mm 2.8L I sold when I left the Canon system; but it looks to be quite a competent lens. Since June last year was the last post here, has anyone used this lens? I'm curious to know whether the price is deceptive or promising...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I live close to several very ambitious gardens and shamelessly go out and photograph flowering things at times, often at close range.  AF, followed by small adjustments in framing or body position to get the right things into focus, is just faster and easier than manual focus.  I'm using the CL with its 60 macro and an S 120 Macro on my SL.  I do have the R macros, but have not used them with the other two possibilities available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A more affordable solution with AF capability (single) for the S1/R (not SL) is the  Canon EF 100 mm macro f 2.8  with the MC-21 mount converter. It is not officially supported, but works quite well. (even with face/eye detection)

The cheapest lens working well with the MC-21 is the Canon EF 50mm STM f1.8 . It could be called an (The) entry lens. (Only 100$ ). It is close-focusing (45 cm), but not really macro. But it is easy to add an AF macro ring or a close up lens.

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/293871-is-the-s1s1r-a-good-backup-camera-for-sl/page/13/?tab=comments#comment-3735177   Entry (post) 247

Edited by caissa
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...